Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling, Carol Marsh, Olga Dickie, John Van Eyssen, Valerie Gaunt
release year:
1958
film rating:
Five stars
reviewed by:
Bill Warren
Not only is "Horror of Dracula" Hammer's best Dracula film, it's the
best horror movie of the 1950s, and one of the best horror movies ever
made by anyone, anywhere. Brisk, intelligent and handsomely produced,
it's still effective today; this new DVD by Warners preserves the film
in a superb print and 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Make no mistake: this isn't
just another horror movie, it's something special.
It was Hammer's follow-up to "The Curse of Frankenstein," reuniting
director Terence Fisher, scenarist Jimmy Sangster, and actors Peter
Cushing and Christopher Lee. (Supporting player Valerie Gaunt also
reappears.) But it's far better than "The Curse of Frankenstein;" the
script is much better structured, there's more suspense, more
surprises, and an even better performance by Cushing. The film is
almost compellingly watchable, condensing the events of Bram Stoker's
novel into 81 swiftly-paced minutes. The only defect is a brief comedy
scene near the end; an early mostly humorous scene featuring Miles
Malleson actually works to further the plot.
And it does have a plot, though not much like Stoker's. Jonathan Harker
(John Van Eyssen) arrives in a distant area of Europe (despite
character names, the whole thing takes place in adjacent European
countries) seeking Castle Dracula, where he is to begin work as a
librarian for Count Dracula. But we understand from his voice-over
diary that he has something else in mind.
The tall, elegant and cape-clad Count (Christopher Lee) greets Harker
warmly, expressing admiration for a photograph of Harker's fiancee Lucy
(Carol Marsh). But he locks Harker in his room at night. However, a
woman (Valerie Gaunt) at Dracula's castle unlocks the door; Harker
meets her in the library where at first she begs him to help her escape
from Dracula -- and then bites him in the throat. But Dracula, his face
smeared with blood, bursts into the room, and in an excitingly-staged,
surprisingly energetic fight, disposes of Harker and sweeps out of the
room, carrying the girl.
In a very creepy scene -- the movie has several -- when he later tries
to deal with Dracula, Harker comes to a bad and off-screen end.
Later, we meet his associate, Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing), a quiet,
authoritative man who's made it his life's work to track down and
destroy vampires. He and Harker have come to believe that Dracula is
the central figure in the vampire mythos.
We also meet Lucy, Mina Holmwood (Melissa Stribling), and Mina's
husband Arthur (Michael Gough), Lucy's brother. Having returned from a
dismaying visit to Dracula's castle -- where he's almost run down by a
hearse speeding away, carrying a white coffin -- Van Helsing informs
them of Harker's death, but will not explain the circumstances.
However, when Lucy comes down with what's diagnosed as incurable
anemia, Van Helsing's interest is seriously aroused. Still, the
obdurate Arthur will not listen to his tales of the Undead. We already
know that Lucy has been nocturnally visited by Count Dracula (in a pair
of eerie, sexy-romantic and scary sequences), and that she's well on
the way to becoming a vampire, despite transfusions, garlic and
crosses. (She disposes of them.)
When she dies, at last, Arthur is convinced, and he and Van Helsing
work together to try to protect Mina from the attentions of the Count.
However, they cannot locate where he has hidden the coffin he must
return to every sunrise, and Mina begins to grow pale....
Lively, intelligent and well-acted, "Horror of Dracula" is just about
everything a well-made horror movie of the period needed to be. It does
jettison some elements of Stoker's vampire mythology; the belief that
they can turn into bats and wolves is, Van Helsing tells Arthur, "a
common fallacy." (Even though in "Brides of Dracula," the first sequel
to "Horror," the lead vampire does become a bat.) And it greatly
shrinks Stoker's crowded cast to a few important players. What it
retains is the straight-line plot that underlies Stoker's busy tale,
and director Fisher treats it seriously and with even more energy than
he brought to "The Curse of Frankenstein."
Cushing's role here is less showy than his Victor Frankenstein. Van
Helsing is far quieter, much less driven; he has a life beyond chasing
down vampires, but he is an expert on that subject. Cushing returned as
Van Helsing in "Brides of Dracula," and later as what can be assumed to
be a descendant of this Van Helsing in a pair of Dracula movies
reuniting him with Christopher Lee. Cushing was always a precise,
detailed actor, very fond of props which he manipulated to great, often
amusing effect. He has one of his best props here, an early cylinder
recorder which provides useful background information, and which
Cushing operates with the cool skill of an audio pro. It's a very warm
performance, exemplified by a scene near the end when he rescues a
little girl from a vampire and wraps her in a warm coat.
In "The Curse of Frankenstein," even though he played Frankenstein's
Monster, Christopher Lee had what amounted to a supporting role. But
here, though often off-screen, he shares the lead with Peter Cushing.
(In fact, in England the film was called "Dracula.") He's superb as
Dracula, one of his best horror movie performances; he's intelligent
but also a supernatural, demonic force. (His facial expressions in the
library fights that open and close the film are very effective, even
frightening.) He sweeps down cobblestone walks and up flights of
stairs, two steps at a time (he seems to be floating). When he attacks
women, it's partly out of lust for blood, and partly out of plain old
lust. Lee liked to say he was presenting "the loneliness of evil," but
Dracula seems very content to be a rapacious vampire, and not lonely at
all.
The supporting cast is mostly quite good, although Michael Gough is a
bit stiff as the stiff Arthur Holmwood. Both Melissa Stribling and
Carol Marsh are very good as the principal women. Marsh has an
especially good sequence after she becomes a vampire and confronts the
horrified Arthur. "Come here my brother, and let me -- kiss you," she
hisses. What follows is shocking and horrifying, and altogether new for
vampire movies: Van Helsing's crucifix brands her forehead with an
unpleasant sizzle.
"Horror of Dracula" was a relatively low-budget movie, as was "The
Curse of Frankenstein," but Bernard Robinson's sets seem spacious and
expensive. The interiors of Castle Dracula are especially impressive,
with some Byzantine design elements (such as free-standing arches),
balconies without railings, and a seemingly huge library. Despite the
fact that there are only a few exterior scenes, "Horror of Dracula"
seems expansive, even airy at times.
The first scene in the library, when Dracula enters with a leering,
blood-smeared face, is one of the greatest and most influential shock
scenes in movie history. Audiences leaped when he hissed his challenge,
but the challenge was really to moviemakers: let's see you jokers top
THIS. "The Curse of Frankenstein" opened a door; "Horror of Dracula"
went through the door with a confrontational confidence. There had
never been a vampire movie remotely like this before, and audiences the
world over were ready for it.
Horror movies changed direction after "The Curse of Frankenstein" and
"Horror of Dracula" the next year. Not only were now both Cushing AND
Lee established as horror stars and Hammer as a pre-eminent horror
studio, but the Grand Guignol horror elements of both films were an
affront and a challenge. As writer David Pirie has pointed out,
sometimes more IS more; classically, not showing the horrifying
elements in horror movies was the way to go, and horror movies were
made in the visual style of German cinema of the 1920s. But Hammer
movies were emphatically mid-twentieth century, vividly gruesome,
packed with energy and sex, and altogether something different. The
changes they began have never faded away; horror movies today would not
be what they are without the impact of Hammer.
It's a damned shame, therefore, that while presenting both "The Curse
of Frankenstein" and "Horror of Dracula" in the best prints they've
ever had on home video, they could not, would not, provide any real
supplemental material. As with "Curse," "Horror of Dracula" features a
brief history of the sequels, error-ridden and very slight. There's
also a trailer for the film -- and nothing else. Yet there are stills
showing scenes that were cut, the films were both shown in more violent
editions in Japan, and this stuff should have been included. Certainly
the stills, easily obtained, should have been a supplement. But
instead, Warners is essentially throwing away two major titles of
horror movie history. The prints are excellent, yes, but the DVDs could
and should have been so much more than they are.
more details
sound format:
Dolby Digital mono
aspect ratio(s):
1.85:1 letterboxed
special features:
scant extras
comments:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
reference system
DVD player:
Kenwood DV-403
receiver:
Kenwood VR-407
main speakers:
Paradigm Atom
center speaker:
Paradigm CC-170
rear speakers:
Paradigm ADP-70
subwoofer:
Paradigm PDR-10
monitor:
36-inch Sony XBR
Like this article? Bookmark and share with any of the sites below.
